Posted by mmt0315 on 6/24/2013 10:52:00 AM (view original):For anyone wondering, filled 7 of the 9 spots. Got an ineligible and a JR, so ironically playing again with 9. Was still ranked preseason and am actually going back to the offensive gameplanning that got LSU in the right direction 10 seasons ago. Will season if it can help maintain this program with a brutal schedule and young team.

Personally I don't see a problem with the EE. 3 of those EE was because he took on SIM's. If he had signed those 3 players then he would of lost only 6. But he gamed the system by taking on sims instead of signing 3 players and this time he lost. It's part of the game, when rolling the dice you don't always win.

Posted by mmt0315 on 6/24/2013 10:52:00 AM (view original):For anyone wondering, filled 7 of the 9 spots. Got an ineligible and a JR, so ironically playing again with 9. Was still ranked preseason and am actually going back to the offensive gameplanning that got LSU in the right direction 10 seasons ago. Will season if it can help maintain this program with a brutal schedule and young team.

Posted by plague on 6/24/2013 6:56:00 PM (view original):Personally I don't see a problem with the EE. 3 of those EE was because he took on SIM's. If he had signed those 3 players then he would of lost only 6. But he gamed the system by taking on sims instead of signing 3 players and this time he lost. It's part of the game, when rolling the dice you don't always win.

How did I "game the system"? My recruiting strategy didnt work as other teams won battles or took recruits I had targeted.

I think what he's referring to is that some coaches find it advantageous not to fill schollies and keep more money for the following season. In real life, a BCS team doesn't just say, "OK, a couple of the studs I wanted went elsewhere, we'll just run with nine scholarship players". They have to go sign secondary options.

So while I don't look at it as gaming the system, I do look at it (in part) as the result of shooting high in recruiting and missing out. I've long thought there should be more repercussions for that, and I suppose this is one of them.

All of that said -- I still think losing 6 EEs is absurd and shouldn't happen ... everything I said in the first page of the thread.

I think I am with Girt on this one -- The penalty for having 3 walkons should be much higher than it currently is in my opinion. I would be all for walkons only providing half the cash the next year to add incentive for guys to actually recruit a basketball team rather than buy one.

Assessing penalties presumes that the walkons are being taken intentionally. But sometimes a team will take on multiple walk-ons unintentionally because they have a disastrous recruiting season, and lose a bunch of battles. We've all seen it happen, where some coach just gets wiped out in recruiting. They're already in a big hole, and now they have scholly cash penalties to contend with on top of that. That'd be a real double-whammy to try to recover from.

Posted by plague on 6/24/2013 6:56:00 PM (view original):Personally I don't see a problem with the EE. 3 of those EE was because he took on SIM's. If he had signed those 3 players then he would of lost only 6. But he gamed the system by taking on sims instead of signing 3 players and this time he lost. It's part of the game, when rolling the dice you don't always win.

How did I "game the system"? My recruiting strategy didnt work as other teams won battles or took recruits I had targeted.

What I said was not meant to be a personal attack against you. I have no problem with someone gaming a system. In my opinion gaming the system is part of the game and if its not intended then it should be fixed.

It does not take that much to find a backup plan. I have had players considering me for less than $400 , that's not very much considering you probably have 50k-100k in money each season.

Many owners would rather have the 15k scholarship money next season rather than sign a player who will never reach the quality of player they desire and then be stuck with that player for 4 seasons. If WIS treated Walk Ons the same as players you actually recruited, which is what WIS does in GD, I bet many owners would have backup plans rather than take the reputation hit for cutting walk ons that are considered their own recruits.

WIS gives us plenty of money for backup plans, I see no excuse for taking walk ons and I have no problem with the negatives that come from taking walk ons. I can make a choice in recruiting, I can go all out on a recruit and suffer the consequences if I lose, or I can not go all out and save a little cash for remaining recruits to ensure I don't take walk ons.

Posted by professor17 on 6/24/2013 11:43:00 PM (view original):Assessing penalties presumes that the walkons are being taken intentionally. But sometimes a team will take on multiple walk-ons unintentionally because they have a disastrous recruiting season, and lose a bunch of battles. We've all seen it happen, where some coach just gets wiped out in recruiting. They're already in a big hole, and now they have scholly cash penalties to contend with on top of that. That'd be a real double-whammy to try to recover from.

Does it matter if its intentional or not intentional? When you get low on cash stop recruiting and save the money for backups or spend the money and risk taking walk ons. At some point in recruiting you have to realize if you spend more money in a recruiting battle that if you lose the battle you will probably take walk ons.

Wouldn't having these types of penalties just penalize teams that aren't in the BCS conferences? Even with 6 openings how can you possibly risk ruining your program by going all in on a local recruit when a big program comes along with loads of playoff cash? Its bad enough that you lose a big battle for a player but on top of that you don't even get replacement cash the following season? What incentive is there for battles again?

You absolutely cannot penalize teams for taking walkons...while I always try to fill rosters at elite DIs, I absolutely intentionally take walk ons at non Elit schools, while Im an idiot and left the OVC...you should see the rosters I put together there and didnt just make the tournament but was able to compete. Penalizing schools for walkons would hurt lower level DI teams. Like I also said on the first page I had no problem with the 9 openings...just took exception to his gaming the system comment.

Posted by buddhagamer on 6/25/2013 1:10:00 AM (view original):Wouldn't having these types of penalties just penalize teams that aren't in the BCS conferences? Even with 6 openings how can you possibly risk ruining your program by going all in on a local recruit when a big program comes along with loads of playoff cash? Its bad enough that you lose a big battle for a player but on top of that you don't even get replacement cash the following season? What incentive is there for battles again?

The question I would ask is...... if your going to lose when you go all in, why go all in? If your going to lose anyway then you might as well save cash for a backup player.

Why is the incentive to battle gone? Just because you spent all your cash instead of saving 2-5k for backups the incentive to battle is gone? That does not make sense to me.

Recruiting is about decisions, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If you decide to go all in and lose then you have to deal with that outcome. In my own opinion there should be no shelter for a coach who follows this strategy and loses when there is other options on the board. If there was no other options then I would understand. When your money is dwindling and decisions need to be made that is when coaching comes into play.

Posted by mmt0316 on 6/25/2013 6:14:00 AM (view original):You absolutely cannot penalize teams for taking walkons...while I always try to fill rosters at elite DIs, I absolutely intentionally take walk ons at non Elit schools, while Im an idiot and left the OVC...you should see the rosters I put together there and didnt just make the tournament but was able to compete. Penalizing schools for walkons would hurt lower level DI teams. Like I also said on the first page I had no problem with the 9 openings...just took exception to his gaming the system comment.

I had said it was not a personal attack. I have no problem with gaming the system. Unintended outcomes is a part of every game made and when anyone takes advantage of the unintended outcomes then they are gaming the system. I doubt WIS original intention was for owners to incorporate a strategy to take walk ons so they can have 15k more scholarship money next season and that is why I said its gaming the system. If that was WIS intention then I am mistaken, but I doubt that was their original intention. Regardless if you use this strategy or not I see others that do use this strategy. .